Ms Crandall told the Sunday Nation that Umati shares the reports it develops with different partners including the police, National Cohesion and Integration Commission and the civil society. They are also in contact with the ministry of Communication as well as electoral commission.

These sites have gained massive popularity since the last General Election, a period when radio stations and mobile phones were the main mediums used to perpetrate hatred.

In contrast to 2007 when there was no systematic monitoring of the Kenyan online environment, Umati is trying to ensure that it captures the trending topics, phrases, and sentiments especially in this campaign period.

“We are aware of the influence that new media had on the 2008 post-election violence in Kenya and this is why we are undertaking this project,” says Crandall.

But why “dangerous speech” and not “hate speech?”

The National Cohesion and Integration Commission Act of 2008 says hate speech is “speech that advocates or encourages violent acts against a specific group, and creates a climate of hate or prejudice which may, in turn, foster the commission of hate crimes”.

The Umati monitors, however, particularly go after “dangerous speech” or “speech that has a potential to cause violence”.

“The definition that NCIC has for hate speech is vague and leaves room for different interpretations,” said Ms Crandall.

“Dangerous speech” is borrowed from Prof Susan Benesch, an academic who studies the role of inflammatory speech in catalysing collective violence around the world.

Ms Crandall said that inflammatory speech is still rife in the Kenyan online space.

“We have found more dangerous speech than we expected,” she said.

As a result, Umati is now working with online thought leaders such as bloggers to quickly counter the results of this.

Umati is also working with Ushahidi to host free and open events and trainings on dangerous speech and how to diminish its effects.